Pages

Sunday, 27 December 2015

Whether public servant can compound the case if assault is committed on him while he was acting in official capacity?

In my considered view, FIR in question cannot be quashedon the basis of compromise. Nature of allegations show that petitionersassaulted the complainant, who was posted as Head Constable in thepolice station itself and had torn his uniform when he was conductinginvestigation on the direction of the Station House Officer pursuant to acomplaint lodged against them. They also threatened to kill theinvestigating officer as well as complainant. Instant dispute is notpersonal in nature. Petitioners committed an offence against the State.There can be no question of compromise between accused and officials ofthe State. For this reason, FIR was lodged by the Head Constable and theinvestigating agency registered a case. It is inexplicable how HeadConstable entered into a compromise on behalf of the State. There isnothing on record to show that he was authorised by the policedepartment to enter into a compromise with the petitioners. Evenotherwise, such a compromise would be of no avail in view of nature ofallegations. The Head Constable while making complaint to the policewas merely acting on behalf of the police department. He would, thus,have no authority to enter into compromise with the accused thereafter.In my considered view after public servant lodges an FIR regarding theassault raised upon him while he was performing his official duty, heloses the locus standi to enter into compromise with the accused.Judgment in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) is not attracted to cases ofthis nature. Under the circumstances, there is no ground for quashing ofFIR. The petition is hereby dismissed.IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.CRM-M-37551-2015 (O&M)Date of decision: December 23, 2015Amrik Singh and others ...Petitioners VersusState of Punjab & another ...RespondentsCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing ofFIR No.57 dated 06.08.2015, registered against the petitioners undersections 353, 186, 294, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC at PoliceStation Kheri Gandian, District Patiala, on the basis of compromise.FIR was lodged by Head Constable Daljit Singh, PoliceStation Kheri Gandian, District Patiala stating that on 5.8.2015, acomplaint of Harbans Singh against petitioners and some other persons,was received by him from the Station House Officer for conductinginvestigation. Both parties were called in the police station. At about2.30 P.M., during investigation, petitioners alongwith 3-4 other personsgot aggressive, on which he tried to pacify them, but they were bent uponkilling. When complainant tried to arrest them, petitioner Amrik Singhcaught him from color of his uniform-shirt and other accused startedabusing and threatened to kill him as well as the complainant party. TheCRM-M-37551-2015 2petitioners tore his uniform and obstructed him in discharge of his officialduty. Pursuant to the FIR, police registered a case against the accused.Petitioners claim that after registration of FIR, a compromise has beeneffected between them and the complainant i.e. Head Constable DaljitSingh. A copy thereof has been annexed alongwith the petition asAnnexure P-2. It has been stated therein that both parties had enteredinto a compromise with intervention of common friends and respectablesand there being no ill-feeling or grudge between the parties, FIR may bequashed.Learned counsel for the petitioners has emphaticallysubmitted that matter having been amicably resolved between the parties,no dispute survives. He has placed reliance on judgment in KulwinderSingh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR ( Crl.) 1052.Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also appeared andadmitted the factum of compromise.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and consideredthe matter.In my considered view, FIR in question cannot be quashedon the basis of compromise. Nature of allegations show that petitionersassaulted the complainant, who was posted as Head Constable in thepolice station itself and had torn his uniform when he was conductinginvestigation on the direction of the Station House Officer pursuant to acomplaint lodged against them. They also threatened to kill theinvestigating officer as well as complainant. Instant dispute is notpersonal in nature. Petitioners committed an offence against the State.There can be no question of compromise between accused and officials ofthe State. For this reason, FIR was lodged by the Head Constable and theinvestigating agency registered a case. It is inexplicable how HeadConstable entered into a compromise on behalf of the State. There isnothing on record to show that he was authorised by the policedepartment to enter into a compromise with the petitioners. Evenotherwise, such a compromise would be of no avail in view of nature ofallegations. The Head Constable while making complaint to the policewas merely acting on behalf of the police department. He would, thus,have no authority to enter into compromise with the accused thereafter.In my considered view after public servant lodges an FIR regarding theassault raised upon him while he was performing his official duty, heloses the locus standi to enter into compromise with the accused.Judgment in Kulwinder Singh's case (supra) is not attracted to cases ofthis nature. Under the circumstances, there is no ground for quashing ofFIR. The petition is hereby dismissed.Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala is directed toexamine whether conduct of respondent No.2 is in accordance with law;whether he sought permission of the competent authority before enteringinto compromise with the accused and in the absence thereof whetherappropriate departmental action needs to be initiated against respondentNo.2. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGEDecember 23, 2015'Rajpal'